R v Woutersz

Case [2018] ACTSC 36


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Woutersz

Citation:

[2018] ACTSC 36

Hearing Dates:

9 October, 8 December 2017

DecisionDate:

28 February 2018

Before:

Penfold J

Decision:

Rulings: see [258], [261] and [271] below.

Findings of fact: see [292], [294], [296], [297], [299], [302] and [303] below.

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – Offences against the person – manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility – assessment of level of mental impairment – whether culpability reduced where level of mental impairment exceeds level required for availability of manslaughter verdict – whether culpability increased by offender’s role in development of mental impairment through drug use – impact on culpability of troubled relationship between offender and victim.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 14, 14(1), 14(2)

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 23A, 23A(4)
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 28

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33(1), 33(1)(i), 33(1)(m), 33(1)(p), 33(1)(t), 33(3), 34

Cases Cited:

Regina v Derbin [2000] NSWCCA 361

R v Jennings [2005] NSWSC 789
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359
R v Anu Singh [1999] ACTSC 32; (1999) 154 ACTR 62
R v Singh [1999] ACTSC 66; (1999) 154 ACTR 93
R v Navin [2016] ACTSC 109
R vTumanko (1992) 64 A Crim R 149
R v De Souza (1997) 41 NSWLR 656
R v Potts [2001] NSWSC 753
R v Mabbott [2002] NSWSC 502
R v Gagalowicz [2005] NSWCCA 452
R v Antaky [2007] NSWSC 1047
R v Dowley [2009] NSWSC 722
R v Holloway [2013] NSWSC 218
R v McKnight (No. 4) [2014] NSWSC 1029
Catley v R [2014] NSWCCA 249
R v Jenbare [2016] NSWSC 1317
Ukropina v R [2016] NSWCCA 277
R v Hart (No 5) [2016] NSWSC 1612

R v Rogers[2017] ACTSC 67

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Gabriela Woutersz (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr S Drumgold (Crown)

Mr K Archer (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 73 of 2015  

Introduction

Murder trial

  1. Gabriela Woutersz was tried in 2016 for the murder of her mother Cheryl Woutersz. After lengthy deliberations, the jury was unable to reach a verdict, and was discharged. A retrial was set down to begin on 21 August 2017.

  1. In the first trial, Ms Woutersz pleaded not guilty by reason of mental impairment, and the question on which the jury was unable to reach agreement was, in general terms, whether her mental state at the time her mother was killed reflected a mental impairment for the purposes of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) or some other mental dysfunction brought on by use of illicit drugs.

Plea of guilty to manslaughter

  1. Shortly before the second trial was due to begin, and in response to an approach by the defence, the Crown indicated that it would accept a plea of guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.  Ms Woutersz was arraigned on 10…

Continue reading R v Woutersz

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Woutersz [2018] ACTSC 36
Case
[2018] ACTSC 36
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Woutersz was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the defendant was charged with manslaughter. The dispute centred around the defendant's level of culpability, particularly in relation to his mental state at the time of the offence and his role in developing that state through drug use. The relationship between the defendant and the victim was also a significant factor in the assessment of culpability.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's level of mental impairment, which exceeded the threshold for a manslaughter verdict based on diminished responsibility, reduced his culpability, and whether his culpability was increased by his role in developing that impairment through drug use. The court also needed to consider the impact of the troubled relationship between the defendant and the victim on the assessment of culpability.

The court found that the defendant's level of mental impairment was significant and did reduce his culpability. However, the court also found that his role in developing that impairment through drug use did not increase his culpability. The troubled relationship between the defendant and the victim was considered in the context of the overall assessment of culpability, but it did not alter the court's findings on the primary legal issues.

The court made several findings of fact and rulings which are detailed in the text. The final orders of the court are also outlined in the text.

Orders

Orders of the court

Rulings: see [258], [261] and [271] below.

Findings of fact: see [292], [294], [296], [297], [299], [302] and [303] below.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.